Related Content

It is not appropriate for the AFP to make any further comment on this matter as it is the subject of current judicial proceedings.

Advertisement

How does the AFP respond to the allegation of Mr Fusca that the oil-for-food taskforce was inadequately resourced and supported during Mr Fusca's time at the Oil-for-food taskforce?

The AFP is aware of the allegations made by Mr Fusca, which are yet to be tested before the courts.

It is not appropriate for the AFP to make any further comment on this matter as it is subject of current judicial proceedings.

The AFP has previously provided information relevant to the resourcing of the Oil for Food Task Force investigation:

The Task Force was established in December 2006 and comprised members from AFP, Australian Securities and Investments Commission and Victoria Police.

In 2009 staffing numbers were:

AFP – 11 staff;

ASIC – 14 staff; and

Victoria Police – 2 staff.

The Task Force was oversighted by a Senior Coordination Group chaired by the Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD). The Senior Coordination Group was comprised of the AFP, ASIC, Victoria Police, the CDPP, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Finance and Deregulation and the AGD.

The role of the Senior Coordination Group was to ensure the Task Force operated effectively and had appropriate resources. This Group met on a quarterly basis.

In 2007 the Government allocated $20.3 million over three years for the criminal and civil investigations as well as subsequent prosecutions.

How does the AFP respond to Mr Fusca's belief that the AFP should have persevered with the oil-for-food inquiry to ensure all possible evidence was collected before a decision was made on the taskforce's future?

The AFP is aware of the allegations made by Mr Fusca.

The AFP has previously provided information relevant to the resourcing of the Oil for Food Task Force investigation:

In July 2007 the Task force agreed to prioritise civil action due to the time limits that apply to civil penalty proceedings. As a result ASIC commenced a separate investigation into potential breaches of the Corporations Act.

This investigation was conducted by ASIC using its powers under Section 13 of the ASIC Act. As a result of that investigation, in December 2007, ASIC commenced civil proceedings in the Victorian Supreme court against six former AWB officers.

In July 2009 the AFP requested a review. As a result of that review the AFP made the decision to discontinue the investigation into the AWB based on legal advice from Peter Hastings QC.

All material collected by the AFP was made available to ASIC to assist that agency with its investigation.

There were a number of challenges encountered during the AFP investigation:

Evidence obtained from the Cole inquiry from witnesses had to be recollected.

The AFP does not have a coercive power to compel a witness to give evidence.

Much of the material is held by international entities, which has required time-consuming legal processes and the cooperation of overseas agencies.

The AFP sought relevant material from ASIC, under section 127 of the ASIC Act; however, the dissemination of this material was challenged through court action by AWB

It would be inappropriate to provide further comment on the conduct of the investigation.

Why didn't the AFP wait for a full brief to be compiled before winding down the taskforce?

The AFP made the decision to discontinue the investigation into the AWB based on legal advice from Peter Hastings QC.

All material collected by the AFP was made available to ASIC to assist that agency with its investigation.

Will the AFP release the advice of Mr Hastings and, if not, why not?

The advice provided by Peter Hastings QC is subject to legal professional privilege and therefore exempt from Freedom of Information Act provisions for public release.

Is it correct that the decision to wind down the taskforce was made before Mr Hastings was asked to provide his advice [as claimed by Mr Fusca]?

The AFP is aware of the allegations made by Mr Fusca.

It is not appropriate for the AFP to make any further comment on this matter as it is subject of current judicial proceedings.

In July 2009 the AFP requested a review of the investigation by Peter Hastings QC. As a result of the review Mr Hastings advised that due to a range of factors the prospect of a successful prosecution were limited and not in the public interest.

On 25 August 2009, based on the advice of Mr Hastings, the AFP made the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation being conducted by the Task Force.

Why was Mr Fusca not interviewed about the allegations he raised internally relating to the alleged lack of support given to the taskforce and his treatment?

Does the AFP stand-by its decision to demote Mr Fusca after he sent emails to his bosses raising various concerns about taskforce staffing in late 2008?

Mr Fusca makes certain allegations [the offer of a promotion in return for shutting down the taskforce] against certain officers in the statement filed in the federal court earlier this year. Why hasn't the AFP launched an investigation into these allegations and sought to interview Mr Fusca about them?

How does the AFP respond to the allegations mentioned in the previous question and will the AFP refer these allegations to an external agency for scrutiny?

The AFP’s Professional Standards unit can confirm that two complaints of misconduct were received against AFP members from Mr Fusca on 5 October 2009 and 21 September 2010. These matters were evaluated and appropriately addressed under the provisions of Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

Section 40RJ of the Act precludes employment related decisions from being a complaint for the purposes of Part V.

In general terms the AFP’s formal complaint process addresses allegations of misconduct.

Complaints evaluated to be related to workplace conflict or employment related decisions and not being issues of misconduct are subject to different processes.

The AFP has systems in place to assist members in dealing with workplace conflict and employment related matters. There are also processes to redress decisions made by management if an appointee believes that the decision is unfair.

The current proceedings in the Federal Court represent one such process for appointees seeking redress of procedural fairness.

It is not appropriate for the AFP to make any further comment on this matter as it remains the subject of current judicial proceedings.

Does the AFP acknowledge that the taskforce could have been managed in a different fashion and what broad lessons have been learnt as a result of the work of the taskforce?

Does the AFP support reforms in the policing/prosecution of white collar matters [fraud, bribery, etc] because of the difficulties faced with such matters in the past?

Serious and organised crimes are challenging in nature to investigate. They typically involve complex company structures and accounting practices and often have overseas links to evidence that results in protracted investigations

The AFP has a number of specialist financial investigators available to it and wherever appropriate the AFP works in co-operation with a range of agencies both domestically and internationally. The AFP is well placed and supported to manage complex white collar crimes.

A recent example of this was Operation Rune, in which the AFP charged two Australian companies - Securency International Pty Ltd and Note Printing Australia Limited (NPA) - and six Victorian individuals with bribery of foreign public officials. The charges relate to alleged bribes paid to public officials in Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam between the dates of 1999-2005 in order to secure banknote contracts.

The AFP has also contributed to the success of Project Wickenby, an ongoing joint taskforce involving the AFP, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), Australian Crime Commission (ACC), the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Project Wickenby aims to protect the integrity of Australian financial and regulatory systems by preventing people from promoting or participating in the abuse of tax or secrecy havens. As part of its work on Project Wickenby, the AFP uses its expertise and experience to examine cases for potential criminal offences and uses its relationships with overseas law enforcement agencies through its International Network to identify transnational crime.